The Washington-Trump administration’s attempt to stop the federal funding is promoting a long-running legal war on the basic constitutional principle that Congress has to decide how to spend taxpayers.
And like the preliminary executive order on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship, the fight is immediately leading to legalization, which may be rapidly ended in the Supreme Court, some Democrats already indicate the prosecution plans. Yes.
Trump’s Office of Management and Budget gave birth to the show down A memo Released on Monday It ordered an immediate block on federal aid and programs costs.
The administration said its purpose is to review these programs to ensure that they are associated with Trump’s agenda, despite the fact that such financial support was approved by the Congress and signed the law. – In a new memo issued by OMB on Tuesday, the administration said the funds were not frozen in the order and that it was not subject to the Impound Control Act.
“It seems clear to me that the Trump administration is hurting to bring the issue to the Supreme Court,” said Sam Baginsteos, who served as OMB General Counselor under the then President, Biden. “ “The Trump administration clearly thinks that they have a favorable court.”
The Constitution specifically states that Congress has the task of imposing taxes and spending money, and it is known as “the power of the purse”. This is the principle authority that the Congress is in separating the exhibition of powers with the president.
“If you take it, you have found a Congress that can not really do much more than any president,” said Professor Josh Shefts of Georgetown University Law Center.
Democrat, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement on Tuesday morning that “Attorney Generals are preparing for legal action to protect our states” in view of the possibly lost federal funds.
There is a case Already filed by different non -infinite groups. Other legal proceedings are also possible.
“Our lawyers are in numerous meetings today on the same topic today,” said a spokesman for the Citizens’ responsibility and ethics in the Watch Dog Group, Washington.
The challengers of Trump’s measures to stop funds will potentially refer to the Impound Control Act, a law passed in 1974 to manage the president’s control over the budget. Subsequently, after President Richard Nixon’s attempt to stop spending on the programs that he did not support, Trump has indicated his intention.
Under this law, the president can temporarily withheld funds – but should first inform Congress, and this decision cannot be based on a policy basis. The President can also ask the Congress to eliminate the spending decisions, which can also be the basis for a break.
During his recent Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee, Trump’s nominee for running the OMB, reiterated that the Impound Control Act is unconstitutional, which has predicted a potential legal argument. The vote has not yet been confirmed.
The White’s legal argument is Mark Polytta, an important supporter, which Trump has appointed to become the OMB General Counselor. Before choosing, Paulata Write an article to a partner Advocating for extensive presidential powers, including the option to stop the fund.
The article states, “Just as the president has the discretion of every criminal law to fully enforced, the president can make decisions to the extent in which specifications can be spent.”
Among other things, the article cited the Supreme Court’s decision last year, which found that Trump had a widespread immunity from legal action as a proof of presidential domination over other branches of the government.
The legislature can also address a clause in the constitution that requires the president to “keep in mind that the laws should be implemented loyalty.”
Although the former fighting between the Presidents and the Congress is disputed over spending on specific issues, what does it matter, Boston University School of Law Professor Jed Shigarman said.
He added, “The part that is unusual is and the whole part of the funds allotted,” he added.
It is possible that a possible matter can reach the Supreme Court if a federal judge prevents the Trump administration from implementing its plans.
Although the court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including Trump’s three appointments, legal experts say the administration could be one of the several difficult legal battles elected.
There are also examples of the Supreme Court who have acknowledged sanctions on presidential power when it comes to how money is spent.
In 1974, around the time, when the Impound Control Act was implemented, the court Rule against it The Nixon administration is trying to stop financial support for the purpose of reducing water pollution.
On a relevant issue, the court in 1998 Invalid a law This allowed the president to issue a “line item” veto of the rules enforced by the Congress – that is, instead of taking full text or vetoing, vetoing specific items within the legislation.
Baginsteos said that when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is “maximizing” its difficulties.
He added, “It is more likely that the court will rule the Impound Control Act.” But it is ready to hold in some ways. “
